Single-Input Multi-Output Model Merging: Leveraging Foundation Models for Dense Multi-Task Learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Model merging is a flexible and computationally tractable approach to merge single-task checkpoints into a multi-task model. Prior work has solely focused on constrained multi-task settings where there is a one-to-one mapping between a sample and a task, overlooking the paradigm where multiple tasks may operate on the same sample, e.g., scene understanding. In this paper, we focus on the multi-task setting with single-input-multiple-outputs (SIMO) and show that it qualitatively differs from the single-input-single-output model merging settings studied in the literature due to the existence of task-specific decoders and diverse loss objectives. We identify that existing model merging methods lead to significant performance degradation, primarily due to representation misalignment between the merged encoder and task-specific decoders. We propose two simple and efficient fixes for the SIMO setting to re-align the feature representation after merging. Compared to joint fine-tuning, our approach is computationally effective and flexible, and sheds light into identifying task relationships in an offline manner. Experiments on NYUv2, Cityscapes, and a subset of the Taskonomy dataset demonstrate: (1) task arithmetic suffices to enable multi-task capabilities; however, the representations generated by the merged encoder has to be re-aligned with the task-specific heads; (2) the proposed architecture rivals traditional multi-task learning in performance but requires fewer samples and training steps by leveraging the existence of task-specific models.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 48 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Apr 2025.
Builds on
48 of 57 references.
References · 48
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,764
- 2016The Cityscapes Dataset for Semantic Urban Scene Understandingcited by 4,427
- 2019Parameter-Efficient Transfer Learning for NLPcited by 4,195
- 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 3,961
- 2021Vision Transformers for Dense Predictioncited by 1,789
- 2017Multi-Task Learning Using Uncertainty to Weigh Losses for Scene Geometry and Semanticscited by 1,345
36 more
- 2022Editing Models with Task Arithmeticcited by 1,076
- 2016An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithmscited by 1,021
- 2017GradNorm: Gradient Normalization for Adaptive Loss Balancing in Deep Multitask Networkscited by 816
- 2023TIES-Merging: Resolving Interference When Merging Modelscited by 795
- 2022Fine-Tuning can Distort Pretrained Features and Underperform Out-of-Distributioncited by 722
- 2023Language Models are Super Mario: Absorbing Abilities from Homologous Models as a Free Lunchcited by 679
- 2018Taskonomy: Disentangling Task Transfer Learningcited by 631
- 2019Linear Mode Connectivity and the Lottery Ticket Hypothesiscited by 627
- 2021Merging Models with Fisher-Weighted Averagingcited by 613
- 2018Loss Surfaces, Mode Connectivity, and Fast Ensembling of DNNscited by 585
- 2018End-to-End Multi-Task Learning with Attentioncited by 533
- 2016Cross-stitch Networks for Multi-task Learningcited by 466
- 2021Conflict-Averse Gradient Descent for Multi-task Learningcited by 441
- 2022Dataless Knowledge Fusion by Merging Weights of Language Modelscited by 384
- 2020Multi-Task Learning with Deep Neural Networks: A Surveycited by 374
- 2019Which Tasks Should Be Learned Together in Multi-task Learning?cited by 367
- 2018Essentially No Barriers in Neural Network Energy Landscapecited by 328
- 2022MultiMAE: Multi-modal Multi-task Masked Autoencoderscited by 287
- 2023AdaMerging: Adaptive Model Merging for Multi-Task Learningcited by 248
- 2023Rewarded soups: towards Pareto-optimal alignment by interpolating weights fine-tuned on diverse rewardscited by 232
- 2021Efficiently Identifying Task Groupings for Multi-Task Learningcited by 218
- 2022Multi-Task Learning as a Bargaining Gamecited by 209
- 2020Just Pick a Sign: Optimizing Deep Multitask Models with Gradient Sign Dropoutcited by 199
- 2019Attentive Single-Tasking of Multiple Taskscited by 148
- 2020Linear Mode Connectivity in Multitask and Continual Learningcited by 144
- 2023Model Breadcrumbs: Scaling Multi-Task Model Merging with Sparse Maskscited by 130
- 2024Localizing Task Information for Improved Model Merging and Compressioncited by 130
- 2021Reasonable Effectiveness of Random Weighting: A Litmus Test for Multi-Task Learningcited by 100
- 2024Representation Surgery for Multi-Task Model Mergingcited by 95
- 2022Auto-Lambda: Disentangling Dynamic Task Relationshipscited by 73
- 2021Part-aware Panoptic Segmentationcited by 56
- 2024LiNeS: Post-training Layer Scaling Prevents Forgetting and Enhances Model Mergingcited by 39
- 2024Knowledge Composition using Task Vectors with Learned Anisotropic Scalingcited by 37
- 2023Merging by Matching Models in Task Parameter Subspacescited by 36
- 2022Pareto Manifold Learning: Tackling multiple tasks via ensembles of single-task modelscited by 29
- 2024Pareto Low-Rank Adapters: Efficient Multi-Task Learning with Preferencescited by 13
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026Model soups need only one ingredientcited by 0
- 2026Model soups need only one ingredient10 Feb 2026